TV Review: Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers

Babylon 5 has always been something of an underdog. Seemingly indomitable, the series struggled through five seasons and four TV movies via the impassioned and visionary guidance of series overlord J. Michael Straczynski (known to fans by his Internet sign-off initials, JMS). Financing and distribution woes nearly took its life on numerous occasions, but...somehow...B5 always weathered the storm, and always endured.

Then something happened &#Array; a bizarre confluence of negatively charged events many people don't understand to this day. B5's highly-anticipated spin-off series, Crusade, was met by a firestorm of controversy before the series even hit the airwaves. Its premiere date changed, corporate-mandated alterations were made to Crusade's tone and appearance, and Straczynski leveled accusations of network interference. The series ultimately premiered to extremely mixed reaction.

Fans quickly squared-off into two distinct camps, each with disparate arguments. One rallied behind the messianic JMS, the other loudly called into question the quality of the show and the veracity of JMS' accusations against Crusade's home network, TNT. One group argued that JMS "needed time" to launch a new series, feeling that Crusade's often lackluster execution should not be seen as an indicator of the show's future potential. The other group asserted that, after five years of spinning adventures in the Babylon 5 universe, JMS shouldn't need considerable "ramp-up" time to make a similarly grounded spin-off "work", and felt the episodes influenced by pressure from the network were actually better than those which weren't. Debates ensued. Hostility and vitriol splattered messily across Internet newsgroups and discussion boards. Crusade's ratings slid, and the show was canceled after the production of only thirteen episodes.

A while later, Babylon 5, Crusade, and the four TV movies were acquired (and aired) by the Sci Fi Channel. In an effort to gauge the continued viability of the franchise, a new TV movie was commissioned, which airs Saturday, January 19, on Sci Fi. It's called Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers. Officially, it's just a new B5 TV movie. Unofficially, and in its structure, Legend of the Rangers is actually a pilot for a proposed television series which would feature the exploits of a crew of Rangers &#Array; elite paramilitary officials first introduced in the original series &#Array; as they face a dangerous universe, and try to get-by in a rickety ship haunted by the supernatural imprint of her former crew.

Anyone expecting B5: LOTR to be a quantum-leap beyond Crusade may be sorely disappointed in this new effort. Generally, Legend of the Rangers feels more refined than its predecessor, and its visual effects &#Array; which are solid but unspectacular here &#Array; are dramatically improved over the rude chunkiness thrown at us by Crusade. But there is a strained awkwardness running throughout Legend of the Rangers. An inescapable sense that the movie is searching for a substance and integrity it never really finds.

Many people consider "The Gathering" (the TV movie which launched Babylon 5) to be a weak and slow-moving pilot. Having just seen "The Gathering" on a newly issued DVD, I can understand this assertion. But "The Gathering" had one quality this new TV movie (specifically entitled "To Live and Die in Starlight") does not have: a sense of vastness and dimension. No matter how bored one was with "The Gathering", it was very easy to look at specific scenes in the movie and ascertain of the breadth and dynamic of the Babylon 5 universe. It was easy to see what kind of stories the movie might lead into, and easy to see that matters Babylonian were far more complex than face value suggested. Such is not the case with "To Live and Die in Starlight". After seeing B5: LOTR, one IGN FilmForce staffer even commented: "This series doesn't have a chance, even if it had some place to go."

Which automatically makes one ask: just what kind of show is this?

The answer is simple. Many people criticized Crusade for being too-much like Star Trek, of which JMS is a self-professed admirer. That volume is tuned-up dramatically in LOTR. One would be hard-pressed to find a series wanting to be Trek more than Legend of the Rangers. As someone who feels JMS' attachment to Star Trek might well signify the salvation of that floundering franchise, I don't have a problem with such similarities, and even enjoy "what if" scenarios of that order. But these qualities do inhibit LOTR from ever falling into its own, distinct personality.

The Minbari Homeworld, as seen in Legend of the Rangers. Significantly re-designed from the original series...

How similar is Legend of the Rangers to Star Trek? LOTR features a brash (and often misunderstood) young human captain &#Array; a bit of a maverick &#Array; whose best friend is a dry, pseudo-empathic Minbari. We have an irascible engineer (a Narn) who always gets things working (despite all the odds), and a reclusive doctor who pretty-much hangs-out in Sickbay and waits for injuries to come in. In battle, their ship is constantly jeopardized by failures of engine or weapons systems, requiring our heroes to think out-of-the-box and be "clever" in their crisis resolution. The list goes on, but the feel is inescapable.

Further confounding LOTR's efforts towards self-definition is its bizarre propensity (and desperate effort) to evoke that which has come before in the Straczynski-verse. Many of LOTR's characters have names remarkably similar to names previously introduced in the first B5 series. The Ranger captain here is named David &#Array; the prodigal son of main characters Sheridan (Bruce Boxleitner) and Delenn (Mira Furlan) in the original series was named David (no, this isn't supposed to be the same dude). David's buddy/sidekick in LOTR is named Dulann &#Array; similar to matriarchal Delenn in Babylon 5. There's a Minbari named Tannier in Legend of the Rangers &#Array; Bill Mumy played Lennier in the original series. Perhaps LOTR never finds a personality, or meets its potential, because it's too busy trying emulate other shows &#Array; indeed endeavoring to evoke its very own forefathers &#Array; instead of trying to distinguish itself as a unique and different entity. In a very real way, Legend of the Rangers is like a teenager trying to find his/her self by mimicking others, instead of concentrating on the special qualities they might already find within themselves.

Performances are remarkably varied &#Array; ranging from earnest to just plain undynamic and flat. Production Design (by Stephen Geaghan & Ken Rabhel) and Henry Chan's photography often betray the relatively modest budget on which LOTR was produced. Prolonged expository dialogue takes forever to convey ideas which could have been shorthanded into the actual storyline (or done away with altogether), and a litany of bizarre conceptual inconsistencies plague the narrative. For example, we are introduced to a new superrace, called The Hand, and told these guys are even more powerful, more advanced, and more dangerous than the nasty, human-fueled, almost-indestructible Shadows combated in B5. Yet these villains are easily deceived, and are dispatched by our clunky little hero-ship with disappointing ease. "To Live and Die in Starlight" never shows us anything aspect of The Hand which makes us sense why they are as bad as we're told they are. Which means the struggle of our crew rings hollow, and the endgame is disappointing.

A friend of mine defended this element, saying "just because they are super intelligent and powerful doesn't mean their resources are automatically poured into military spacecraft." To which I responded: "If they were so damn powerful and have been around for so long, you'd think they'd be street smart enough not to pick-on heavily armed good guy ships without the ability to adequately combat them." And, from a simple dramatic standpoint, what's the point in establishing the superiority of mega-villains if such superiority isn't going to factor significantly into our hero's interactions with them? Human inability to defeat the Shadows was a critical element of B5's overall story arc. There's no such challenge, thus no such tension, in Legend of the Rangers.

Perhaps the greatest indicator of LOTR's tragic misguidance is illustrated by the use of Adreas Katsulas as G'Kar, a returning Babylon 5 personality who (more or less) mentors people in this installment. Katsulas is one of the most compelling actors around these days &#Array; and G'Kar is one of the most mesmerizing and well-defined science fiction characters ever to hit TV screens. Yet he is irritating here. He butts-in, he's annoying, arrogant, and conducts himself with an effeminate flamboyance that grates from minute one. The end of B5 saw a contemplative, introspective G'Kar heading-out to explore the vast unknown of the universe. Whatever happened to him out there must have turned him turn him into a bitchy queen.

At the end of the day, even elements that worked in Babylon 5 (a great character, poetic pontification) do not work in Legend of the Rangers. Which raises the question: has the franchise run out of steam, or have the people guiding it lost their bead on how the show works, and why? I don't know such answers, although I do believe, very strongly, there are many tales left to spin in the Babylonian universe &#Array; one of the richest and most stirring settings ever conceived for television. But this movie does little, or nothing, to reinforce that notion.